This story first appeared in Trust Me, I’m a Scientist, June 3, 2013.
When I ran into producer/engineer Scott Solter at a mutual client’s show a couple of weeks back, he relayed some advice that he’d been giving young bands recently. He’s already one of my favorite guys working today, profiled by Daniel Shuman in the December 2012 issue of Scientist. And his was among the best tips I’d heard in a long time:
“If you want to be like your heroes,” he said, don’t copy their sound or their gear but, “emulate their process.”
That very idea was also at the heart of our lead story last month, “How Long is This Gonna Take? (The Time and Cost of Recording an Album).” In it, we went over the 3 basic approaches to putting together a full-length record, and tried to peg down an average time and cost for the whole thing. This month, I wanted to make these ideas even more concrete by zooming in on the works of one great band to see what we could learn about planning a record.
A Quick Recap
There are no hard and fast rules about budgeting a commercial release, but if pressed for an average, I’d say that something in the neighborhood of 2 weeks and $10,000 is a pretty good place to start. I’m not alone in this: When I asked a wide cross-section of producers and engineers about their fundraising recommendations for crowdfunding campaigns, that figure came up again and again. It’s a moving target, but I think it’s safe to say that for career-minded new artists of modest means, it’s probably unwise to spend any less than $5,000 or much more than $20,000 on making their first full-length.
There’s no guarantee that you’ll earn back that kind of investment, but it is doable. I’ve seen it happen again and again. I’ll over-simplify the math here, just to keep things nice and round and optimistic, but roughly speaking, paying for a budget in this range translates to 500-2,000 album sales via Bandcamp, 700-2,800 sales through iTunes, or about 100,000 – 400,000 album spins on Spotify, in order to break even.
The Fine Print: Those of you who’ve actually been involved in financially sustainable releases may notice that we’ve neglected to include the costs of promoting an album, printing up physical copies, splitting the revenue with a manager or label, or touring in support of the release.
Yes, it’s true. Despite what the internet has been telling you, these things are useful, and they can be expensive. Touring for instance, may be one of the best ways to sell records, but it often ends up costing new bands money.
(In fact, throughout most of the 20th century, live shows were considered a “loss leader” for album sales. Concert revenue has only surpassed recorded revenue in recent years because music sales have dropped 50%, while big-name acts have increased their ticket prices dramatically — by over 40% in the past 3 years alone.)
If you’re optimistic and already have a large internet following, the numbers above may work for you. If you’re not a magician at self-promotion and want to be more realistic, go ahead and add at least 50% and as much as 100% to these target figures to account for publicity/management/label share of revenue. These are those much maligned “middle” men and women, who in reality, are still partly responsible for many (if not most) sustainable music careers today.
If you think you might have some real trouble selling 500-2,800 albums, then it’s a smart idea to begin with some singles or maybe even an EP instead. Oh: and start playing a lot more shows.
I’d recommend growing enough of a fanbase and earning enough press credibility that your record has some kind of shot out there once you release it. If you’re pursuing music as a career, there’s nothing more depressing than spending weeks or even months on a release to find out that not only does no one care… but people aren’t even aware enough of your album’s existence to not care.
A Case Study: 3 Albums by Nirvana
I like to bring up Nirvana for a few reasons: Most modern musicians working in any genre tend to have at least a passing familiarity with all three Nirvana albums, they were one of my favorite bands as a teenager, and they make it abundantly clear that a debut album can cost well less than $10,000 (or far more) and still sustain itself.
Nirvana’s first record, Bleach, is fabled to have taken just 30 hours of recording time. In 1988, an unusually talented young Jack Endino billed just $20/hr for this. For those of us who are lousy at math, that works out to about $600. Endino admits this was a pretty damn cheap price tag for a recording, even back then. He has even said that their first sessions together “went by so fast that I barely remember even talking with them…It was one of the fastest sessions I had ever done.”
Despite their slacker image, Nirvana were among the most well-rehearsed and painstakingly prepared bands in their entire scene. You try practicing together 6 days a week, 4 hours a day and see how long it takes you to record an album. Just listen to the band play “Love Buzz” into a cheap camcorder microphone during an early rehearsal in 1988. Chad Channing’s less-than-inspired drumming aside, tell me it doesn’t sound like a take that’s just begging to be captured in a decent studio with some real mics. Do you sound this good and well-balanced when your whole band plays around a single SM57? Try it sometime and find out:
But before you decide to use this album as a template, there are a few things worth knowing:
First, $600 in 1988 dollars is about $1,200 in 2013 dollars. Back then, $20/hr was about the lowest you might expect to shell out for recording time worth paying for in a small market. Today, I’d peg that minimum at about $40/hr. That should be enough to get you into a studio as grungy as Reciprocal was, also with a talented young engineer just coming into his own. Recording equipment aside, the cost of everything has basically doubled. This includes those things that have always made up the largest potion of any studio bill: Time, rent, and skilled human labor.